Monday, October 5, 2009

261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused._______________________________________________________

Don’t quite understand the legal lingo? Here’s a partial transcript of Roman Polanski’s victim describing her “experience” with the famed director. Polanski pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, also known as statutory rape, in 1977. He posted bond, then fled to Paris, where he has spent the last 30 years enjoying the privileged life of a multimillionaire director and international celebrity. He was finally arrested on September 28, 2009 in Switzerland and is fighting extradition.

**Warning~the following is extremely graphic**

Excerpts:

Q: Samantha Gailey, how old are you?

A: 13

Q: You reside with your mother and your sister at a residence in Woodland Hills?

A: Yeah.Q: At any time did Mr. Polanski offer you something to drink?A: Yes. I think I said I was thirsty. And he went in the kitchen and this refrigerator, it was full of juice and wine and soda and all this stuff. And he got out -- he got a bottle of champagne. And he said, "Should I open it?" And I went, "I don't care," you know.Q: How much did you drink?

A: I don't know. I had been finishing my glass and I was using it to pose in the pictures with. So I have no idea how much I drank.

Q: So after you had the drink of champagne, you went and took pictures?

A: Yes.Q: After taking pictures in the patio area, what happened?

A: We went inside and he started playing with his camera again. I think he changed lenses or something. And then we took some more pictures right inside the patio door.

Q: Was that wearing the same outfit that you had on when you arrived, the blue jeans?A: No. I didn't have a shirt on. I was standing behind a lamp.Q: Was that at his request or did you volunteer to do that?

A: That was at his request.Q: After taking those photographs, what happened?

A: He went to show me this Jacuzzi that Jack Nicholson has.Q: After talking to your mother on the telephone, what happened?

A: We went out and I got in the Jacuzzi.

Q: So you went outside?

A: No, wait. We went into the bathroom before and he took this little yellow thing. I don't know what it was. It was some kind of container. And he had -- he walked in before me. When I walked in he had the container. And he had a pill broken into three parts. And he said, "Is this a Quaalude?" And I went, "Yes." And he says, "Oh, do you think I will be able to drive if I take it?" And I went, "I don't know," you know. He says, "Well, I guess I will," and he took it. And he says, "Do you want part?" And I went, "No." And he says -- oh, at that time I went "Okay," because -- I don't know.

Q: Why did you take it?

A: I don't know. I think I must have been pretty drunk or else I wouldn't have.Q: How did he get you to take that tablet?

A: I took it with a swallow of champagne.

Q: What happened after you took the tablet?

A: I went into the kitchen, and I don't know why, but I thought if I ate -- I realized I was drinking and then I took that. And I then really got upset at myself so I started eating.A: I said that I wanted to go home because I needed to take my medicine.

Q: What did Mr. Polanski say?

A: He said, "Yeah, I'll take you home soon."

Q: What did you do?

A: I told him -- I said that I wanted to get -- I wanted to go home. I said, "No, I have to go home now."

Q: What did Mr. Polanski say?

A: He told me to go in the other room and lie down.

Q: When he said, "In the other room," was there an adjoining room to the bathroom?

A: No, it was at the end of the hall. He went outside the bathroom. It was right a few feet away.

Q: What kind of room is that?

A: I'm not sure. There's no lights on in it. And it looked like a master bedroom. It had a bed and a couch and a TV.

Q: What did you do when he said, "Let's go in the other room?"

A: I was going, "No, I think I better go home," because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q: What were you afraid of?

A: Him.Q: What were you wearing at that time?

A: My underwear and a towel.

Q: At some time had you put on your panties?

A: Yes, I did that right away when I got into the bathroom.

Q: What happened when you sat down on the couch?

A: He sat down beside me and asked me if I was okay.

Q: What did you say, if anything?

A: I said, "No."

Q: What did he say?

A: He goes, "Well, you'll be better." And I go, "No, I won't. I have to go home."

Q: What happened then?

A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, "No," you know, "Keep away." But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

Q: What was said after you indicated that you wanted to go home when you were sitting on the couch?

A: He said, "I'll take you home soon."

Q: Then what happened?

A: And then he went down and he started performing cuddliness.

Q: What does that mean?

A: It means he went down on me or he placed his mouth on my vagina.

Q: What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?

A: He was just like licking and I don't know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of... I was going, "No. Come on. Stop it." But I was afraid.

Q: Why do you believe you were under the influence at that time?

A: I can barely remember anything that happened.

Q: Is there any other reason?

A: No. I was kind of dizzy, you know, like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination like walking and stuff.

Q: How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina?

A: A few minutes.

Q: What happened after that?

A: He started to have intercourse with me.

Q: What do you mean intercourse?

A: He placed his penis in my vagina.

Q: What did you say, if anything, before he did that?

A: I was mostly just on and off saying, "No, stop." But I wasn't fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.

Q: What did he say, if anything?

A: He didn't answer me when I said, "No."

Q: At this time were your panties off?

A: Yes.

Q: How were your panties taken off?

A: He had taken them off.

Q: When was that?

A: After he kissed me he got a hold of them and he pulled them off.Q: At any time did he ask you when your period was?

A: Yes.

Q: When was that?

A: While he was having intercourse with me.

Q: Did he ask you about being on the pill?

A: Yes.

Q: When did he say that?

A: At the same time.

Q: What did he say?

A: He asked, he goes, "Are you on the pill?" And I went, "No." And he goes, "When did you last have your period?" And I said, "I don't know. A week or two. I'm not sure."

Q: And what did he say?

A: He goes, "Come on, you have to remember." And I told him I didn't.

Q: Did he say anything after that?

A: Yes. He goes, "Would you want me to go in through your back?" And I went, "No."

Q: Did he say anything else?

A: No.

Q: How long did he have his penis in your vagina?

A: I can't remember how long, but not a very long time.

Q: Had you had sexual intercourse with anyone before.

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how many times?

A: Twice.Q: What happened after he says, "DO you want me to -- " Was it go through your back?

A: Yes.

Q: What happened then?

A: I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, "Oh, I won't come inside of you then." And I just went -- and he goes -- and then he put me -- wait. Then he lifted up my legs farther and he went in through my anus.

Q: When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?

A: He put his penis in my butt.

Q: Did he say anything at that time?

A: No.Q: Did you resist at that time?

A: A little bit, but not really because - (pause)

Q: Because what?

A: Because I was afraid of him.*****************************************

Oh, phooey! It wasn’t like a “rape-rape” as stated by that intellectual genius Whoopi Goldberg, when weighing in on the recent arrest of Roman Polanski on her show, The View. In fact, it was “consensual,” she says. Goldberg’s scholars at the Moron University need to update her on the definition of the word “no,” as well as her legal scholars at whatever law school she secretly attended.Let's not forget, the victim, Samantha Geimer, 45, no longer wants to prosecute! Why waste taxpayers’ money on such a gifted, artistic pedophile? Sheer nonsense, they say. In fact, let’s just throw the Jaycee Dugard case out with the bathwater as well, since she was also a little wishy-washy about testifying against the man who held her captive for 18 years, brutally raping her along the way. Some of the other pedophile defenders in Hollywood include:

Re-read the transcript of the nauseating assault above, and imagine if that were your child. And then try to wrap your brain around each of these celebrities defending the animal at fault.

I simply cannot.

In fact, I am utterly disgusted at their ignorance, their lack of information, and the message they're sending to victims of sexual assault (except for Allen, whom we wouldn’t expect any less from). I was so angry after watching Goldberg’s mentally deflated comments and reading the petition to free Polanski that all I could do was post the information here and let you decide.

Would you be angry if it were your child? Should the charges against Roman Polanski be dropped?

Former Sex-Crimes Detective Stacy Dittrich's new true-crime book,"Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill", featuring the stories of Drew Peterson, Bobby Cutts Jr., Antoinette Frank and others, debuts in bookstores October 27th and is available for pre-order on line now.

15 comments:

Yeah, screw the victim if they don't want the same outcome you do! Don't they know they're there as props for prosecutors and true crime reporters and their actual feelings don't really matter?! How dare they support any outcome besides maximally harsh penalties! The nerve of some people, huh? (/sarcasm)

Given the victim's wishes, the credible allegations of prosecutorial/judicial misconduct and the length of time since the offense, I see little public safety benefit (and only harm to the since-compensated crime victim) from dredging all this up now. So yes, the charges against Polanski should be dropped.

So, Grits, you're in favor of dropping charges in a domestic violence case if the victim requests it? "Hey, my husband only tried to strangle me and broke my arm. He didn't mean it. He loves me!" So for you, that's okay? Prosecutors should walk away?

New Age guru Ira Einhorn fled in 1977 after murdering his girlfriend in Philadelphia. He'd stuffed her corpse inside a trunk in a closet where it mummified. It took two decades to arrest Einhorn in France. So in your view, prosecutors should have let Einhorn go, too, right? Because the case was an old one? Let's get it straight here: Successfully fleeing to avoid prison should be rewarded?

I can't comment on the alleged misconduct. That's something for Polanski's attorneys and the court system to work through.

But according to the victim's testimony, this was a despicable crime: Roman Polanski drugged, raped, and sodomized a 13-year-old. I gather raping a child is okay with you? Acceptable behavior? I gather you wouldn't object if that were your daughter.

Kathryn, great point. If Polanski was targeted, if the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct then Polanski could have easily hired a powerful criminal defense attorney to take them on in court. He had the money, he had the resources. He could have exposed the prosecutor, but he didn't. He ran like a coward, because he knew he was guilty.

The one comment that keeps coming up is "if it were your child"...well it wouldn't be... most parents would not leave their 13 yr old child alone with a 48 yr old man no matter who he was. They say the mom was a wanna be actress, as many in LA are, you can't tell me she was not aware of the risk she was taking...the directors couch has been around as long as Hollywood has. I agree, Polanski should have his day in court,and should of done it long ago. But, I believe when and if this happens, Sammantha and her mother will be the ones to suffer the most.JMO

I couldn't even read the entire transcript. UGH! I also cannot believe the ignorance of the defenders. Last week I listened to part of Debra Winger's disgusting speech and had to turn the channel. I won't be watching anything these twits are in or produce. LOL @ Woody Allen. You had to figure he'd have the audacity to weigh in. He doesn't know he is a sick perv himself.

I just hope they send RP to prison. Such a wimp and coward not to stay and face justice. And now adding insult to injury by claiming he shouldn't have to.

Hey Hondarooly: I don't disagree that the mother was unwise, but I'm wondering how that excuses Polanski or even mitigates what he did? He was the adult in that house that night. No matter how that 13-year-old arrived, she remained a vulnerable child. Drugging and forcing intercourse on anyone is a crime, but raping a child is an abomination. Don't you think?

I don't know what will happen, Leah, but it's time that RP confronts what he did, understands it was wrong. By recent reports, he was bragging that he was untouchable, above the law. Doesn't sound like all those decades in exile taught him anything.

I was not trying to make excuses for Polanski. He should of appeared in court a long time ago. What I was saying is that this trial is probably going to be harder on Sammantha and her mother, then it will be on him. The mother will be portrayed as pimping her daughter out especially after receiving over $500,000 in a civil suit. As a wanna be actress, she surely would be aware of the infamous directors couch...it's been around as long as Hollywood. Sammantha will be portrayed as a young girl well beyond her age in experience. And that young girl will not be sitting there for a jury to see. Add the possible prosecutor's and judge's misconduct, I predict a very ugly and messy trial. With any luck, he will at least be held and convicted for fleeing prosecution, and at 73yrs of age that may be enough. My heart goes out to Sammantha. I understand why she would not want this trial to proceed.JMOHondarooly

Although 13, she was experienced with both sex and drugs. There is considerable evidence of prosecutorial abuse, judicial abuse and parental desire to obtain money. So suddenly California wants to extradite someone who evaded a 42 day sentence when normally California is hesitant to extradite for minor offenses that would put even more people into its over-crowded prison system.

Where does FleaStiff get her information on the 13 year old girl? She's a child. (elementary school age) That statement makes no sense. Are you saying sexual molesting a child is the child's choice?

Where are you from Fleastiff ...Amsterdam?

Here in America a child can not give legal consent (especially one who has been given drugs and alcohol by an adult.) Which could have killed her. I noticed in the transcript the young girl mentions having asthma. She's lucky to be alive.

What is obscene is the attitude that if a thirteen year old has had sex, or done drugs, or some other adult behavior they are no longer considered a child and are fair game to any predator that wants to abuse them. That is evil. Any "celebrity," or anyone else for that matter, that supports a man that rapes a child is equally callous and wrong.